Abraham
Abraham had direct interactions with God on a continuing basis, including the past fulfillment of promises.

And Elwood had direct interactions with Harvey. So what? How do you know Abraham wasn’t hallucinating? Where is the evidence?

Even if Abraham was hallucinating, Abraham had evidence to do according to his hallucination. Even a hallucination is not zero evidence, which should be perfectly obvious. You’re in the desert. You see a mirage that looks to you like an oasis. You set off in that direction. Did you set off in that direction on the basis of no evidence? Of course not. You set out on the evidence of your eyes. So you never find the oasis—it appears that your evidence wasn’t as good as you supposed. And maybe your flu shot won’t work, either.

And Elwood had direct interactions with Harvey. So what? How do you know Abraham wasn’t hallucinating? Where is the evidence?

More’s the point, how do we know that Abraham was a real person, and that all of this really happened as described in the Bible? The falling of the walls of Jericho is only one of many biblical events that are not corroborated by disinterested contemporary evidence.

It’s rather like looking to the Mahabharata to decide whether or not you think that Krishna is a god who works effectively with humankind. The book was written specifically to reinforce that message, so you certainly will find it there. But writing something down doesn’t make it true.

And Elwood had direct interactions with Harvey. So what? How do you know Abraham wasn’t hallucinating? Where is the evidence?

More’s the point, how do we know that Abraham was a real person, and that all of this really happened as described in the Bible?

That really doesn’t matter. We could use the film “Harvey” as our example and we’d still have an example where Mr. Dowd interacts with Harvey based on evidence. He sees Harvey and hears Harvey talk. This provokes a response on his part that is rational given his experiences.

The falling of the walls of Jericho is only one of many biblical events that are not corroborated by disinterested contemporary evidence.

Sure, if you like, but the point was that those reading the faith chapter in Hebrews were having communicated to them an account of faith that was evidence-based.

It’s rather like looking to the Mahabharata to decide whether or not you think that Krishna is a god who works effectively with humankind. The book was written specifically to reinforce that message, so you certainly will find it there. But writing something down doesn’t make it true.

In this case, the issue is whether or not the Bible presents an evidence-based conception of faith. And finding that in the Bible does make it true.

In this case, the issue is whether or not the Bible presents an evidence-based conception of faith. And finding that in the Bible does make it true.

It provides a conception of faith that is based on the truth of the Bible, that much is granted. But where is there any discussion of evidence that what the Bible says is true? An evidence-based conception of faith cannot merely “take on faith (without evidence)” the truth of the Biblical account itself.

Or to put it another way, it’s no further evidence for the Bible to say in one place that what it says in another place is true.

In this case, the issue is whether or not the Bible presents an evidence-based conception of faith. And finding that in the Bible does make it true.

It provides a conception of faith that is based on the truth of the Bible, that much is granted.

No, the conception of faith is presented regardless of whether the Bible is true, just as in the case of the film “Harvey.” Whether or not the events in “Harvey” occurred, the movie presents a conception of faith.

But where is there any discussion of evidence that what the Bible says is true?

On other boards and in other threads where it is on topic, I suppose.

An evidence-based conception of faith cannot merely “take on faith (without evidence)” the truth of the Biblical account itself.

Again, it doesn’t matter whether the Bible is true of not with respect to the model of faith it presents.

And what if Abraham’s faith was not caused by hallucinations? Maybe it was not caused by anything. According to the theory of indeterministic model it is quite conceivable that the faith just popped up in Abraham’s head for no reason (a cause) at all.

And what if Abraham’s “direct interactions with god” were not caused by hallucinations? Maybe they were not caused by anything. According to the theory of indeterministic model it is quite conceivable that the “direct interactions with god” just popped up in Abraham’s head for no reason (a cause) at all.

1) Even if they popped into his head for no reason at all, they count as evidence. Only if we change the scenario to the point of a type of indeterminism that precludes the recognition of patterns do we end up with a case of blind faith in this example.

2) The indeterministic model of LFW I presented has nothing to do with your attempt to blend the ideas from two separate threads. As noted above, one might have an indeterministic world in which patterns could not be recognized. My model in the LFW thread includes correlation between intention and outcome. That being the case, there is implicitly some sort of pattern recognition going on—and even if there weren’t it would seem like it to observers (as such we are with respect to the model).

The definition of evidence is extended to include things that we wouldn’t normally consider real evidence (voices in the head, hallucinations, made up fairytales, etc); leaving the question as to what exactly defines ‘good’ evidence.

I’m going to guess that it will end with equivocating solid, credible evidence with the likes of blind faith in biblical scripture.

I hope you’ve stayed abreast of the context, which deal with the model of faith as presented in the Bible—that is, a faith based on evidence.

The definition of evidence is extended to include things that we wouldn’t normally consider real evidence (voices in the head, hallucinations, made up fairytales, etc); leaving the question as to what exactly defines ‘good’ evidence.

Sure, but you have to deal with the Bible on its own terms when we talk about what it teaches, don’t we? If the Bible taught, for example, that Abraham was hallucinating when he talked with God, then the faith taught in the Bible would be faith in hallucinations or something (we’d still have to do something about things turning out according to the way he hallucinated them, of course).

The Bible could teach faith without evidence by giving us an example of somebody who was promised things by God where God failed over and over again yet that person continued to believe. But as long as it is presupposed that the Bible takes seriously the relationship between promise and fulfillment, it’s hard to argue that the model of faith is not based on evidence.

I’m going to guess that it will end with equivocating solid, credible evidence with the likes of blind faith in biblical scripture.

I don’t see why we’d need to go there, given the context as I described it above. But good luck with that one, anyway!

That one should use reason rather than faith is the presumption of rationalism. One would have to use reason to overcome it. Reaon can move the mountains of ignorance while faith cannot instantiate the supernatural nor the paranormal.
Keith Ward, theologian maintains that the rationalist demand for evidence would hamper us in going about our daily doings. Nay, that demand so varies. It is the appropriate type in each situartion., none to litle to extraordinary. Thus Ward uses the all or noting fallacy. That bane.
My evidence for my parent’s love for me is their actions toward me. Evidence isn’t only through the micrscope, the teleoscope or the Buntsen burner. Ward use here a straw man.High level theologians like him aver that Clifford Richard Dawkins uses straw men against religion but rather it is they against us rationalists.
Faith is the we just say so of credulity. It begs the question of its subkect. Science, as Sydney Hook affirms, is acqured knoweldge whereas fath begs the quesion of being knowledge. That bane.
Clifford versus James.Faith is the we jjust say so of credulity.

I regret that I’m coming to this topic so late.

I suggest that faith has its place, even if it’s defined as a belief without sufficient evidence to support it. An example is the ongoing attempt to cure AIDS. We have no evidence that a cure is possible, but we do have Faith in science. When that Faith is made manifest in action, we have a chance to cure AIDS - maybe.

Only when faith is unreasonable does it merit our disapproval - and obviously, when it’s unreasonable is a judgment call. Sometimes the judgment will seem clear, sometimes not.

So, two questions:

1. Would you stop AIDS research? If not, on what basis do you justify it, if not faith? Yeah, I know, you’re making a reasoned judgment in the face of unknowns - but that’s what Faith is, when done appropriately.

But as long as it is presupposed that the Bible takes seriously the relationship between promise and fulfillment, it’s hard to argue that the model of faith is not based on evidence.

I don’t think we should presuppose any book,bible or otherwise,could be able to take anything seriously.The authors,or the readers may take the book seriously,but a book has no conscientious abilities.
As long as were out here in left field debating the existance of a god;and I know it’s been covered before;but the promise and fulfillment,reward and punishment thing is so humanly contrived.The funny thing about this conundrum,is that when you try to trace it backwards,using the “test’ of an actual creator,then it becomes even more contrived.It shouldn’t though,it should become more complicated,and more revealing.

Signature

Row row row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

But as long as it is presupposed that the Bible takes seriously the relationship between promise and fulfillment, it’s hard to argue that the model of faith is not based on evidence.

I don’t think we should presuppose any book,bible or otherwise,could be able to take anything seriously.The authors,or the readers may take the book seriously,but a book has no conscientious abilities.

Referring to the text rather than to the object itself, of course, but there’s enough humor in your semantic twist to wring a smile from me.

As long as were out here in left field debating the existance of a god;and I know it’s been covered before;but the promise and fulfillment,reward and punishment thing is so humanly contrived.The funny thing about this conundrum,is that when you try to trace it backwards,using the “test’ of an actual creator,then it becomes even more contrived.It shouldn’t though,it should become more complicated,and more revealing.

Actually the subject was not the existence of God but the nature of faith and whether or not the Bible teaches the notion of faith without evidence.

But as long as it is presupposed that the Bible takes seriously the relationship between promise and fulfillment, it’s hard to argue that the model of faith is not based on evidence.

I don’t think we should presuppose any book,bible or otherwise,could be able to take anything seriously.The authors,or the readers may take the book seriously,but a book has no conscientious abilities.

Referring to the text rather than to the object itself, of course, but there’s enough humor in your semantic twist to wring a smile from me.

As long as were out here in left field debating the existance of a god;and I know it’s been covered before;but the promise and fulfillment,reward and punishment thing is so humanly contrived.The funny thing about this conundrum,is that when you try to trace it backwards,using the “test’ of an actual creator,then it becomes even more contrived.It shouldn’t though,it should become more complicated,and more revealing.

Actually the subject was not the existence of God but the nature of faith and whether or not the Bible teaches the notion of faith without evidence.

Well my reply wasn’t a semantic twist.It was a counter-twist directed at clever semantics.
I would have thought that “the nature of faith” and, “faith without evidence” in regards to the “teachings of the bible"would be directly attributable to the debate about the existance of god.
In otherwords,in the above when mentioning the validity of the ideas,notions or inspired hallucinations of abraham,we must pre-suppose that these ideas were a direct influence from god.

I hope you’ve stayed abreast of the context, which deal with the model of faith as presented in the Bible—that is, a faith based on evidence.

Credible evidence that supports the claims of the bible? Surely you should know better than to try this here.

Sure, but you have to deal with the Bible on its own terms when we talk about what it teaches, don’t we? If the Bible taught, for example, that Abraham was hallucinating when he talked with God, then the faith taught in the Bible would be faith in hallucinations or something (we’d still have to do something about things turning out according to the way he hallucinated them, of course).

The Bible could teach faith without evidence by giving us an example of somebody who was promised things by God where God failed over and over again yet that person continued to believe. But as long as it is presupposed that the Bible takes seriously the relationship between promise and fulfillment, it’s hard to argue that the model of faith is not based on evidence.

People with no divine origin or superpowers have made accurate predictions about future events, and there are all manner of great fiction stories (some with their own occult followings even!) based around characters who run by evidence-based faith. People, stories, and religions that you will disclaim outright, even through your bible stands on no better footing.

I don’t see why we’d need to go there, given the context as I described it above. But good luck with that one, anyway!